Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

Rage is crappy on PC.
The developers themselves admitted that it was a mistake optimizing it for consoles and then port it to PC.

Deus EX and Borderlands run very good on PC. It is easy to identify a port by the amount of graphics options avaiable , this is not always true however.
Drive San Francisco is another PC port, since they even needed to patch it for more display resolutions.
And then, there are AWESOME ports like Devil May Cry 4 and Resident Evil 5, and HORRIBLE ports like Devil May Cry 3 and Onimsha 3. In DMC3 you cant even customize your freaking controller and the graphics are ps2-like... while in Dmc4, even a 8600GT can make it look like a Nex-gen game since it's surprisingly light and runs in absolutely any system. Same for RE5.

And these were meant for consoles.

Edit@TJR

Now, we joined at same date, both of our nicknames start with "T", and we just posted at same time... !!!!!

Rage is crappy on PC.
The developers themselves admitted that it was a mistake optimizing it for consoles and then port it to PC.

They've made all kinds of excuses. While it's true that designing a game around the PC would result in a more impressive product, the console port methodology hasn't stopped other developers from producing excellent PC iterations (even if they aren't as fantastic looking as they might potentially be).

It boils down to the program design and the love they put into the port. With RAGE, id made an engine that sounds interesting on paper but is poor in practice. Clearly, they didn't give a damn about the PC version (seemingly tossed out with minimum work and quality assurance) either given all the compatibility issues.

The cpu dedines the system potential and no matter how strong your gpu might be it will be only as strong as your cpu.

That's not entirely true. The whole point of the GPU is to take load off of the CPU, which wasn't designed for graphics processing. The stronger your GPU, the more that can be offloaded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sides

ps360 games these days run at sub and up to 720p with some sort of AA. Furthermore most of them are locked at 30fps. Except for Ridge racer 7, no other retail game has ever reached 1080p@60fps, and that was a launch title. All the other games that claims to be running at 1080p are using tricks like 1280x1080p, see gt5, or are just upscaling. So in a way the HD revolution in console gaming, this gen, is/was a marketing Bullcr@p.

720p is still HD, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

The funny thing is, if it wasn't for the stupid marketing gimmicks, all games in existence should be available on the PC. The only reason for buying consoles is because they get exclusive tittles.

Don't be so arrogant. The game console has its place as a device that was designed for video games, is cheaper to buy, is relevant for a longer time and needs no configuration or installation of any kind (though in recent times some games have been asking for hard drive installations...). Just pop in the game medium and play.

Sure 720p is HD, but most games on the consoles didn't render at that resolution. For example on the ps3 Space Marines was something like 1152x640; El Shaddai 1152x576; Crisis 2 1024x720; Resistance 3 960x704; Dark Souls 1024x720; those CoD games were all sub 720p and Rage dynamically changes from 640x720 to 1280x720. So personally I think that is a scam to market a system being HD, only because it upscales the video output to HD specs.
And I kind of doubt that Skyrim will be render at 720p on the current consoles.

Heh, i didnr intend to derail the thread into a hardware channel but it has been useful. This is just one of those gamea that lure one into hardware upgrades. Up to now my trusty 9600gt has been fine for *most* of the games I play. But Ihave upgraded everything else in the last year and now the card is the laggard in the ayatem. It will continue to serve well in my "anime" box hooked to my tv or in the guest box in the guest room.

Your 9600GT is 44% as powerful as the GTX 260 in the recommended requirements, so yeah, an upgrade is probably in order. And as an Elder Scrolls game, Skyrim should have enough gameplay to make it worthwhile too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tong

When I bought New Vegas for PS3, I instantly returned it. I just couldnt stand:
-Slow loading times
-720p, below average graphics. Probably medium/low settings equivalent to its PC counterpart.
-30 Fps and constant slowdowns.
-Bad controls, you just cant aim that good with an analog stick.

Surprised to hear its that far behind the PC version, I would have guessed a mainstream GPU like Urzu 7's HD5750 to be about 2.5-3X the power of a PS3 GPU (rough calculation, made by looking at comparative performance of 7800gtx/7900gtx, 7900gtx/8800gtx, 8800gtx/5770 and then 5770/5750 because no one directly compares the 7800gtx (which is similar to the PS3 unit) to the 5750 directly) and that the much lower render resolution would make a lot of it up. The extra memory probably makes a huge difference though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TJR

It boils down to the program design and the love they put into the port. With RAGE, id made an engine that sounds interesting on paper but is poor in practice. Clearly, they didn't give a damn about the PC version (seemingly tossed out with minimum work and quality assurance) either given all the compatibility issues.

ID Tech 5 is really designed for low latency hardware with little memory - so yes, consoles, but I get the impression the tech would have been more impressive a few years back when PCs didn't tend to have as much graphics RAM and such too. They didn't ship a title based on it nearly fast enough though, likely because taking advantage of IDTech 5's unique features requires investing tons and tons of man-hours in the creation of art assets forthe game.

But yeah, even more than the poor engine design the state of the PC version bugged me. The number of tweaks release within a couple of days suggest that isome of the games' issues on the PC would have been trivial to fix, yet they didn't bother. Shame, since it seems to have turned an awful lot of PC gamers off a game that from what I read is actually one of the better recent FPSes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sides

Sure 720p is HD, but most games on the consoles didn't render at that resolution. For example on the ps3 Space Marines was something like 1152x640; El Shaddai 1152x576; Crisis 2 1024x720; Resistance 3 960x704; Dark Souls 1024x720; those CoD games were all sub 720p and Rage dynamically changes from 640x720 to 1280x720. So personally I think that is a scam to market a system being HD, only because it upscales the video output to HD specs.
And I kind of doubt that Skyrim will be render at 720p on the current consoles.

--A dream called "Youth". We'll eventually wake up from this dream, but the memories will continue to endure. - Karasuma, School Rumble
--Today you are You, that is truer than true. There is no one alive who is Youer than You. - Dr. Seuss

The one thing that's slightly disappointing for me is the lack of good facial preset choices... I'm guessing most of the Human races have the same looks so I'll have to experiment on my own... Also, is that a setting for body build? I thought I saw something like that but I can't be sure...

The one thing that's slightly disappointing for me is the lack of good facial preset choices... I'm guessing most of the Human races have the same looks so I'll have to experiment on my own... Also, is that a setting for body build? I thought I saw something like that but I can't be sure...

Half the fun is spending 5 hours making your character, only to realize it looks terrible in game and then spending another 5 hours to 'fix' it.

Why would you care how your character looks like when the game is viewed in first person? Hell, even if you viewed it in third person you can hardly see any of the features your character has, other than the armor and your hair.

Why would you care how your character looks like when the game is viewed in first person? Hell, even if you viewed it in third person you can hardly see any of the features your character has, other than the armor and your hair.

Why would you care how your character looks like when the game is viewed in first person? Hell, even if you viewed it in third person you can hardly see any of the features your character has, other than the armor and your hair.